There are good reasons why hearsay “evidence” is not admissible in a court of law. One reason, discussed in Thursday’s commentary, is that hearsay makes it a whole lot easier to railroad someone, as Democrats have been trying to do to President Trump with their secret hearings, unreleased transcripts and lack of due process. That's why the Sixth Amendment provides that the accused has the right to confront his or her accuser --- not someone who talked to someone who overheard someone talking to the accuser.
Another reason we don’t allow hearsay is that so often, it’s just plain WRONG.
Case in point: In breaking news from Reuters that in a better world would send the impeachment “inquiry” packing and slinking away in shame, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Pristaiko said on Thursday that “Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and certainly did not tell me, about a connection between the assistance [military aid] and the investigations [into the Bidens]. You should ask him.” This undercuts Wednesday’s testimony from William Taylor, who had said that the day after Trump’s call with Zelensky, a member of Taylor’s staff had overheard a phone call between Trump and Sondland in which Trump asked about the investigation into the Bidens and Sondland told him the Ukrainians were ready to proceed. See how this hearsay thing works, or, rather, doesn’t? Either the staff member got it wrong, or Taylor heard the staff member wrong. Taylor’s testimony is WRONG.
The Gov. answers excellent reader question on "inquiry" hearing
Yesterday there was a woman on the panel who started to make a comment/ask a question and Schiff cut her off. Why was he allowed to do that, and why did he do it? I haven’t heard or seen anyone question this.
From the Gov:
Sharp eyes. That was New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, who was praised in my Thursday morning commentary for her magnificently no-nonsense style of questioning during Wednesday’s farcical hearing. Her local paper ran a detailed account of her role in the hearing; the link is below.
Yes, Adam Schiff did abruptly cut off Rep. Stefanik, with no further comment. He obviously was trying to dispense with her because she brought up his disgraceful “parody,” accusing him of mischaracterizing the call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky (which he most certainly did). She had asked that an October 29 impeachment "inquiry" memo be placed into the record; this was the one in which Alexander Vindman claimed that several key words and phrases had been omitted from the transcript of the call.
After Stefanik made her request, she started down this road, which is what got her shut down: “You yourself, Mr. Chairman, have mischaracterized the call. In fact, in the first open hearing you have a parody...”
That’s as far as she got. Schiff, as if poised to spring, immediately used his gavel and said, “The gentlewoman will suspend.” The memo did get entered into the record, but she wasn’t allowed to say more and Schiff moved on. He gets to do this because he chairs the committee and the rules they approved by partisan vote allow him to do it.
So there you are. We at Team Huckabee saw it, too, and it went by very fast –- just a few seconds. Fortunately, some other Republican committee members, notably ranking member Devin Nunes in his opening statement, found opportunities to reference Schiff's disgraceful lying “parody." I’m not sure they mentioned Schiff’s name in those mentions, but that hardly matters. Like the name of Democrat operative/spy Eric Ciaramella, we already know it.
Always love your sense of humor, Governor. Want to thank you for recognizing Elise Stefanik, who is doing a great job for those of us in her district. She has many supporters on Facebook but many (left-wingers) who get on with their dimwit negative ranting. Amazing to see how many of them still don’t have a clue. Thank you again and I enjoy you back on TV.
From the Gov:
Thanks so much. I enjoy BEING back on TV. And your district should be proud to have elected such a sharp and dedicated member of Congress. Wish we had more of them!
##Appellation##, I wanted to make sure you also read these comments:
If you’d like to be especially well-versed in the issues of significance to the disgraceful impeachment “inquiry” going on this week, you could do a lot worse than read this helpful November 12 memo to Republican members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and the Committee for Foreign Affairs, prepared for them by their staffs.
This memo discusses EVIDENCE: actual phone call summaries, previous witness testimony, memos, matters of law, public statements, etc. It’s heavily footnoted and presents a solid conclusion. It also takes us back in time to show the long history of concern about Ukrainian corruption. You won’t be tested later, but it certainly is refreshing to read a fact-based report that doesn’t sound like, “I wasn’t on the call, but I got an impression from hearing so-and-so talk to so-and-so after hearing about a conversation between so-and-so and so-and-so, who read a memo by so-and-so, who also texted so-and-so after being concerned about so-and-so and such-and-such after talking to so-and-so.
Despite Nancy Pelosi’s desperate rantings that President Trump has committed crimes bigger than Watergate, the Democrats’ so-called “grounds” for impeachment have to be changed more often than a baby’s diaper, and for pretty much the same reason. We’ve gone from “Russian collusion” to “obstruction” to “quid pro quo” and now “bribery,” even though the best evidence they’ve been able to muster has been a parade of disgruntled Foggy Bottom swamp critters, all cheesed off that the President didn’t let them set foreign policy and repeating second-, third- and fourth-hand water cooler gossip.
So I tip my hat to the Instapundit blog for pointing out this link:
This is a blog post by W. Lewis Amselem, a retired long-time US Foreign Service Officer who served all over the world and is “convinced the State Department needs to be drastically slashed and reformed so that it will no longer pose a threat to the national interests of the United States.”
Mr. Amselem is only too familiar with the kind of arrogant bureaucrats that Dems are using as “witnesses.” Here’s an excerpt from his expert assessment of the proceedings thus far (go to the link for the full article):
“Let me put it in nice simple terms so that the Swamp Beings will understand: The President sets and conducts foreign policy, not State, not the NSC, not the DOD, not any other alphabet agency. He does not have to go through State or NSC to conduct said policy; he does not have to consult with Kent or Taylor or anybody else on Ukraine or any other aspect of foreign policy.
All Presidents have used ‘irregular’ channels going back at least to Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House. All have used messengers and negotiators outside the established bureaucracy for different diplomatic missions. There is nothing unusual or illegal or impeachable for doing this. The bureaucracy doesn't like it, so what?”
I wrote recently that the only appropriate response to all these people whining that the President didn’t do what they thought he should is “Who cares?” I stand corrected. “So what?” is also perfectly acceptable.
Bible Verse of the Day (KJV)
"When thou passest through the waters,
I will be with thee;
and through the rivers,
they shall not overflow thee:
when thou walkest through the fire,
thou shalt not be burned;
neither shall the flame kindle upon thee."
- Isaiah 43:2
Did you miss reading a newsletter recently? Go to our archive here.